Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Social Security & Carbon

I have so far avoided
explicitly political questions on this blog, but I have always planned to post
on issues involving technology and the environment.Here is a sample.

It has occurred to me that the
Democratic Party is dramatically at odds with itself concerning energy and the
environment.On the one hand, Democrats
are almost exclusively concerned about climate change.The failed cap and trade legislation pursued
by the President in his first term is one example.The federal mandate on light bulbs is
another.All policies proposed to curb
carbon emissions work (if they did or could work) to curb energy
consumption.

On the other hand, the
Democratic Party is much more firmly committed to maintaining and increasing
federal spending.This is especially
true when it comes to the major entitlement programs.It seems obvious that the Democrats will do
whatever is necessary to prevent any significant reductions in entitlement
spending.I could point out the problems
in fiscal logic involved here, but I will focus on something else.

More and more over time,
federal spending has become and will increasingly become devoted to maintaining
consumption.The whole point of most
social policy and particularly of entitlements is to make sure that as many
people as possible have as much to spend as possible.Social Security directly funds consumption.Medicare and Medicaid make it possible for
people to get medical care without diverting their resources away from
consumption.

The result is that more people
have more floor space, comfortably heated and well lit.They have more cars and fuel to put in the
tank.They have more wealth to spend on
trips about the country, in RVs or airliners, to see the grand kids or visit
the Grand Canyon.This is pretty
obviously a good thing as far as it goes.

However, consumption requires
production and production requires the extraction and burning of energy.Not all the energy efficient light bulbs or
all the hybrid vehicles encouraged or mandated by federal law will count as
anything next to the consumption levels that our social policies are designed
to maintain.If we know anything about
energy use, it is that every increase in energy efficiency is more than matched
by an increase in energy use in bigger houses and kitchens, larger TVs and more
devices.

The social policies that the
Democrats religiously protect fund ever higher levels of energy consumption,
thus wiping away whatever good may come from their environmental policies.If environmentalists were really serious
about curbing energy consumption, they would switch to the Republican Party and
push hard for entitlement reform.

Of course, they won’t ever do that.Environmental politics is, like all politics,
polemical.Polemical thinking makes it
hard to reconsider who your friends and enemies are.That Democrats are the party that cares more
about the environment weighs more heavily than the fact that Democrats may not
be the party that is actually good for the environment.

Another reason that the environmental
left will not abandon the Democrats is that the Democrats bring clout to the
table.Democrats can actually block the
Keystone pipeline.They can do this in
part because they have the unions and the AARP behind them. It would require amazing courage and
imagination to give up that support in order to move toward really effective
environmental policy.Don’t hold your
breath.

I am not saying that we should
impose draconian limits on consumption to save the planet.While it is true that technological
innovations favoring energy consumption have so far been outmatched by energy
consumption for new and more expensive living conditions, the ratio will
eventually shift if technological advance continues at the present rate.Sooner or later we will be able to live in
very comfortable housing at a negligible cost to the environment, if we
continue to innovate.

I just point out a major
contradiction in environmentalist support for the Democratic Party at the
present time.Right now, rising
consumption in the developing world is the major driver of carbon
emissions.In the US, emissions are
rather stable.This is due to new
technologies like fracking.Still, personal
consumption is the major driver of energy use here as well.Social Security may be good for the elderly,
but it is not good for reducing carbon emissions.Just sayin’.